Lessons From Paper Clips

To a fierce competitor, instead of being a discouragement, the failure of predecessors to achieve a goal can be a powerful motivator. Ask any athlete. The fact that no one before him had run a four-minute mile did not discourage Roger Bannister from attempting to do so. He succeeded in 1954, and since that time, many others have broken the four-minute barrier. Analogous achievements have occurred in many other sporting events.

In the field of inventions, hopefuls focus on points of failure to zero in on what needs improvement. One late 20th century American inventor concentrated on the enduring tendency of the Gem’s sharp and rough wire ends to damage paper. To him, eliminating the ends altogether would eliminate the fault. The logic is impeccable, but how can you form a paper clip from a piece of wire that has no ends?

He could not do that, of course, but what he could do was form a clip out of a conventional piece of wire, and then join the two ends to create an “endless filament paper clip.” The unorthodox-looking device certainly achieved its inventor’s objective, but at some major costs: It used more wire than a Gem; its fabrication involved the extra step of joining the two ends together; and its unfamiliar shape did not identify it as a paper clip, let alone suggest to the potential user how it worked. It succeeded in the patent office but not in the marketplace.

One German inventor eliminated the rough details by first forming small balls on the ends of the piece of wire that was to be bent into the familiar Gem shape. The balled ends naturally eliminated any troublesome burrs, and so the clip was very gentle on paper. There was an extra manufacturing cost, but the finished product did not look so different from a classic Gem. In fact, its ball-ends identified it as an obvious improvement.

Other inventors have addressed rough wire ends by starting with a longer piece of wire, and forming the clip so that when it's attached to paper, its ends fall near or beyond the edges, making it less likely to snag them.

There always seems to be new challenges for the paper clip inventor. One very recently introduced clip addresses the concern that steel can damage a paper shredder. The new clip is made out of highly compressed paper products, so it can be left on documents sent to the shredder and do no harm. It does not look anything like a Gem, but resembles the kind of plastic paper clip introduced decades ago to deal with the perceived problem of steel clips demagnetizing floppy disks.

"Then there are the true innovators in our industry; companies that are not afraid to stretch the bounds of technology in order to bring society creative, cutting edge designs."

Tekochip, would you think this will help the industry. No, because rather than common man or community developments, all such patent holders have business mentality. My company has many patents in communication and software process, but anybody can use it without any royalty.

5000 year old Wisdom from the book of Ecclesiastes; Chapter 1, verse 9: What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. ---Great & Wise King Solomon

It's odd, no matter how new your idea is, there is probably prior art that is the same thing. I am dealing with this concept on a hand full of projects I am working on. But, as a friend of mine suggested, I am adding "patent defeating holes" to my designs. Features that will make it different from all the others in question. Underhanded, but what can I say... I want to see my ideas come to fruition.

---

This guy has it right. Unfortunately, both sides of a patent dispute will do the same. In other words, it is whoever is more clever, faster.

A friend of mine said if he has a patent issue with a product he is about to release, he is going to move his company to China. There, patent laws seem not to matter. Though, I don't think that will solve the issue. Money will though. Get some financial backing, and patents are a non-issue.

Its funny and frustrating for those who have spent legitimate effort on patenting technologies. I don't discount the value of the styling patent; (known as Ornamental, or "design" patents, vs. Utility patents) they're very important. One peer long ago explained to me, "that's why every car on the road doesn't look like a Corvette Stingray". Point well made. However, Patents like Apple's attempt at a rectangle just make me sit back and ** sigh**

Scott, that's a pragmatic way of thinking, to spend the funds on marketing up-front. I agree. Realistically speaking, with today's fast-paced technology growth, many patents are pending obsolescence about the same time the patent grants --typically 24-36 months after filing. Accordingly, often there's no point in protecting the idea. Better to grab the cash-flow from early adopters while the idea is hot.

Then there are the true innovators in our industry; companies that are not afraid to stretch the bounds of technology in order to bring society creative, cutting edge designs. Of course I mean Apple and their patent for the Round-Cornered Rectangle.

So true, JIm. I only have four patents, but each one is a lot of work to prepare and bring to fuition and in the end what you have is "a right to litigate". The obligation to defend the patent territory rests with the inventor and is an expensive proposition. I've often thought one was better off using the patent money to pay for the marketing of the invention. First mover advantages in the marketplace are worth a lot to the bottom line in the long run.

I agree, Mydesign. The value of patents seems to be particularly strong in the world of smart phones, cell phone networks, and tablets. Courts around the world these days are upholding patent ownership by leveling fines or blocking violating products from sale.

Rob, you are right. That's the main reason and motivation behind Google to acquire Motorola. Motorola, once the pioneer in mobility have 'n' number of patents (it's assumed more than 11,000) and now Google owns all the patents, so they don't have to worry while releasing a new product.

Good points, Mydesign. One thing I've seen in the mobile phone world and other tech areas is the value of patents as company assets. Quite a few times in recent years, company acquisitions have been based on the value of the acquired company's patents.

Practically all electronic devices today contain metals that may
be coming from conflict-ravaged African countries. And political pressures will increasingly influence how these minerals are sourced and used in products.

Design for manufacturing (DFM) in mold production means that mold designers evaluate the manufacturability of their molds in the early stage of mold development by collecting all relevant information and applying it to their designs. They also have to consider many other factors, including flow balance, structural stress, and assembly tolerance, in order to ensure successful molding production.

Some adhesives provide strong structural bonds but take hours to fixture and attain handling strength. The technologies that offer the fastest cure do not bear loads or withstand stresses. A new class of adhesives aims to make both stick.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.